Cross‐trimester marker ratios in prenatal screening for Down syndrome
- 1 June 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Prenatal Diagnosis
- Vol. 26 (6) , 514-523
- https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.1446
Abstract
Objective: To examine the performance of Integrated Down syndrome screening (first‐ and second‐trimester measurements integrated into a single screening test) when ratios of the levels of the same serum markers measured in both these trimesters (cross‐trimester ratios) are added as new screening markers.Methods: Using data from Serum Urine and Ultrasound Screening Study (SURUSS), second‐trimester concentrations (in multiples of the median, or MoM) of pregnancy associated plasma protein A (PAPP‐A), alphafetoprotein (AFP), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) (free β and total), and inhibin‐A were divided by the first‐trimester concentration to obtain a cross‐trimester (CT) ratio for each analyte in 74 Down syndrome and 492 unaffected pregnancies. We identified CT ratios that improved screening performance and then, using Monte Carlo simulations, estimated the efficacy and cost effectiveness of adding them to the Integrated and serum Integrated tests.Results: All the median CT ratios differed significantly between Down syndrome and unaffected pregnancies. Setting the Integrated test to achieve a 90% detection rate, the false‐positive rate (FPR) was 0.7% with CT ratios for PAPP‐A, uE3, inhibin‐A, and total hCG compared with 2.2% without CT ratios, a reduction of about two‐thirds. Using the serum Integrated test to achieve the same 90% detection rate and the first‐trimester measurements made at 11 completed weeks of pregnancy, the corresponding FPRs were 2.4 and 8.1%, a similar proportional reduction. The AFP CT ratio had little effect on screening performance. Using CT ratios did not increase the cost per Down syndrome pregnancy detected.Conclusion: The addition of CT ratios to an Integrated test substantially improves the efficacy and safety of prenatal screening for Down syndrome. It is cost effective and could be usefully introduced into screening programmes. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Keywords
Funding Information
- Mr Gopal Savjani (DSL Laboratories Inc.,)
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- ErrataJournal of Medical Screening, 2006
- Corrections to maternal age-specific live birth prevalence of Down's syndromeJournal of Medical Screening, 2005
- Graphical presentation of distributions of risk in screeningJournal of Medical Screening, 2005
- Repeated measures screening for Down's SyndromeBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2004
- Nuchal translucency and gestational agePrenatal Diagnosis, 2004
- Executive summaryJournal of Medical Screening, 2003
- Comparison of models of maternal age‐specific risk for Down syndrome live birthsPrenatal Diagnosis, 2003
- Revised estimates of the maternal age specific live birth prevalence of Down's syndromeJournal of Medical Screening, 2002
- Integrated Screening for Down's Syndrome Based on Tests Performed during the First and Second TrimestersNew England Journal of Medicine, 1999
- Fetal loss in Down syndrome pregnanciesPrenatal Diagnosis, 1999